[Colorado-Talk] Denver Area: Access on Demand

Tue Sep 9 14:31:00 UTC 2025

Hi all,

You may have seen in the memo that all of a sudden, they're including the
cost for WAVs, wheelchair accessible vehicles, as part of the AOD program.
This stinks to high heaven. I just had Claude, my AI of choice, go back and
make sure that they're not pulling these costs from the Access-a-Ride
budget, which they're not, because that budget has remained more or less the
same.

Here's my conversation with Claude:

TK

What does it say in the memo about why they suddenly started using these new
cost numbers for AOD including the WAV vehicles? These vehicles should
already be budgeted for under Access-a-Ride, the budget for which is shown
later in the memo. So, is there any explanation for why they almost double
the cost of the Access on Demand program while the Access-a-Ride budget
remains the same? You can double check the Access-a-Ride budget in the peer
review report document.

Claude: You've identified a critical inconsistency. Let me examine what the
memo actually says about this sudden inclusion of WAV costs.

What the memo says about WAV costs:

The memo states: "Information previously presented to the Board has
illustrated the actual trip subsidy paid by RTD to the four service
providers and has not, prior to the dissemination of this memorandum,
included the Wheelchair Accessible Vehicle (WAV) costs that should also be
considered as part of the overall program costs. These costs have been
included in the scenarios as described."

The problem with this explanation:

1. No justification provided: The memo doesn't explain WHY these costs
should "also be considered as part of the overall program costs" when they
weren't before.

2. Double-counting issue: As you note, the memo shows the 2026 AaR budget at
$53.4 million. If WAV vehicles are already budgeted under AaR, then
including $12-16 million of WAV costs in AoD scenarios appears to be
double-counting.

3. Timing is suspicious: This accounting change conveniently appears just
when the Board pushed back on staff's restrictive recommendations,
dramatically inflating all scenario costs.

Comparing to the APTA peer review:

The May 2025 presentation (from the APTA peer review period) showed AaR
operating costs at $53.3 million annually, very similar to the $53.4 million
projected for 2026. This suggests the AaR budget has remained stable while
they've suddenly added $12-16 million to AoD accounting.

What this suggests:

This appears to be an accounting manipulation rather than a legitimate cost
discovery. WAV vehicles don't magically create new costs - they're the same
vehicles RTD was already operating and budgeting for under AaR. The memo
provides no explanation for why moving some of their utilization to AoD
should create additional budget line items.

For your public comment: This accounting change looks like staff moving the
same costs from one bucket to another to make AoD appear more expensive,
without any reduction in the AaR budget that should logically accompany such
a shift. It's either double-counting or manipulative accounting designed to
support their predetermined conclusion to cut the program.

That basically sums it up right there. I encourage everyone, in addition to
making public comment tomorrow night, to email your public comment to the
OSSC sooner rather than later. In this forum, you're not constrained by a
3-minute timeline, so you can fully express yourself. 

I just did that, and my email is below:

Subject: Public Comment for Sept 10 OSCC Meeting

Dear Members of the Operations, Safety & Security Committee,

I'm writing to urge you to recommend Scenario 4 from staff's August memo and
to ask pointed questions about the suspicious accounting changes that have
suddenly inflated program costs.

My Story

I'm a blind Access-on-Demand user who works night shifts at Amazon in
Aurora. Some of my shifts start at 2:30 AM, others end at 12:30 AM
(sometimes flexing to 1:30 AM). Under staff's preferred Scenario 2, I'd lose
access to subsidized transportation for all these shifts. When I have to pay
the full $30 Uber fare home after a midnight shift, that's nearly three
hours of wages at $22/hour - a devastating hit to my paycheck. I'm not alone
- at least three other blind workers at my Amazon facility work these same
overnight shifts, and undoubtedly others throughout the system depend on
24/7 service.

The Broken Promise

Ten months ago, RTD asked Denver voters to approve Ballot Measure 7A to
avoid refunding excess revenue to taxpayers, explicitly promising to
"maintain the availability of services for people with disabilities."
Sixty-nine percent of voters said yes, including endorsements from the
Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition based on that promise. RTD now keeps at
least an extra $50-60 million annually that would have been refunded to
taxpayers. Yet they want to break their promise to retain services in order
to save 2.4% of RTD's budget. This isn't fiscal responsibility - it's a
betrayal of voter trust.

The Suspicious Numbers

Staff's August memo contains glaring problems that demand scrutiny:

1. Manipulative Accounting: Staff suddenly includes $12-16 million in
wheelchair accessible vehicle (WAV) costs that were never counted before,
nearly doubling program costs overnight. Yet the Access-a-Ride budget
remains unchanged at $53.4 million. Where were these WAV costs previously
budgeted? If they're shifting from AaR to AoD accounting, why isn't the AaR
budget reduced correspondingly? This appears to be double-counting designed
to inflate AoD costs.

2. Basic Errors: Scenario 2's assumptions reference "18 trips per customer
per month based on a lower per month trip cap" - but Scenario 2 has 60
trips, not a reduced cap. This is copied from Scenario 1's text. If staff
can't get basic parameters right, how can we trust their cost projections?

3. Unsupported Claims: The memo claims Access-a-Ride on-time performance
dropped from 90% to 86% and attributes this decline to AoD WAV demands. But
this is pure speculation with no evidence provided. Staff offers no data
showing causation between AoD usage and AaR performance problems. They're
essentially guessing and presenting it as fact to support their
predetermined conclusion.

The Math Doesn't Add Up

Even staff's inflated numbers show the program represents a tiny budget
impact:

*	Current AoD cost: 1.9% of RTD's $1.3 billion budget
*	Scenario 4 (reasonable compromise): 2.4% of budget
*	Scenario 6 (most generous): 2.8% of budget

Staff threatens to cut 3.3% of bus service if they don't get Scenario 2, but
that same amount could fund the most generous AoD scenario twice over. This
isn't about fiscal crisis - it's about staff manufacturing reasons to
decimate a program that for some reason they seem hellbent on cutting.

Why Scenario 4 Makes Sense

*	Fair pricing: $4.50 matches Access-a-Ride fares - we're not asking
for special treatment
*	Preserves essential service: Maintains 24/7 access and full service
area for people who depend on it for work and independence
*	Reasonable cost: At 2.4% of RTD's budget, this is hardly breaking
the bank
*	Honors voter promises: Maintains the paratransit services voters
specifically funded through 7A

Hold Staff Accountable

Ms. Johnson has a pattern of giving non-answers to direct questions. When
you ask about the WAV cost accounting, the errors in assumptions, the
unsupported claims about performance impacts, or anything else, don't accept
evasive responses. Keep asking until you get straight answers. You deserve
accurate information to make informed decisions.

The Bottom Line

Access-on-Demand isn't broken - it's RTD's most efficient paratransit
service. Staff is manufacturing a crisis to justify cutting a program that
enables disabled people to work, live independently, and contribute to the
community. We're willing to pay our fair share with a $4.50 fare, but we
shouldn't pay premium prices ($6.50) for what staff admits is RTD's most
cost-effective service.

Scenario 4 represents a reasonable compromise that maintains essential
services while addressing legitimate fiscal concerns. More importantly, it
honors the promise RTD made to voters just ten months ago.

Thank you for your consideration and your commitment to serving all RTD
customers.

Sincerely,
Tim Keenan
Access-on-Demand User

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20250909/9b8c5543/attachment.htm>